R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept.) v. CIT

75 ITR 33High Court1970#1805 most cited

What is R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept.) v. CIT authority for?

The mere absence of customer addresses, particularly for cash sales, in the books of account is not a sufficient ground to reject the books or to cast suspicion on the genuineness of the transactions.

63

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand v. CIT · 75 ITR 33 · rejection of books of account · section 145(3) · absence of customer addresses · cash sales genuineness · genuineness of transactions · section 68 addition · suspicion of transactions · books of account validity

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 68Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 131

Issues it is cited on

section 115besection 69drejection of books of accountaddition under section 68section 145(3)addition u/s 68section 145section 158bcsection 44absection 115bbsection 115bsection 69b

Judgments citing R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept.) v. CIT

ACIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Mahendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 172/JPR/2022[ABUPK2500L]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2022
For Appellant: Shri Kapil Khejrolia (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…r wants of the details which are not required to obtain and keep as per the law. The reliance is placed on the following decisions: - i) Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept.) v/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1970] 75 ITR 33 (Bombay) Case law Paper Book Page 153-156 held that :- Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 13 of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922] - Method of accounting - Rejection of accounts - On assessee's inability to supply addresses of purchasers who purchased goods on cash, ITO rejected assessee's books of account showing resul…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Raj Kumar Nowal, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 165/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Kapil Khejrolia (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 68

…for wants of the details which are not required to obtain and keep as per the law. The reliance is placed on the following decisions: - i) Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept.)v/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1970] 75 ITR 33 (Bombay) Case law Paper Book Page 153-156 held that :- Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 13 of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922] - 18 Shri Raj Kumar Nowal, Jaipur. Method of accounting - Rejection of accounts - On assessee's inability to supply addresses of purchasers who purchased goods on cash, ITO rejected assess…

ITO-33(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Vikram Baijnath Agarwal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 103/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 33(1)(2) V. Shri Vikrambaijnath Agarwal Room No. 945, 9Th Floor 2003/04, Birchwood Raheja Villows Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex Lokhandwala Township Nr Mahindra Gate 4 Kandivali (E), Mumbai - 400101 Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Adepa8582C Appellant Respondent

Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…ertain amount of purchases is added twice in the income, once under the pretext of comparison with average market price and second time 44 C.O. No. 11/MUM/2022 Shri VikramBaijnath Agarwal under section 40A(3). RB JessaramFatehchand (Sugar Dept) v/s.CIT (1970)75 ITR 33 (Bom) Assessee made cash purchases of gold ornaments making individual payments below Rs. 20,000 in cash, as such provisions of section 40A(3) are not attracted, therefore disallowance made u/s. 40A(3) of Rs. 184,50,501 rightly deleted by CIT(A). Dept Ground No. 8 Disallowance of freight charges of Rs. 1,54,125/- partlyallowed by CIT(A): [ CIT(A) p…

Dy CIT-CC-1(1), Mumbai vs. Shree Mangal Jewels P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1408/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2022AY 2017-18
Section 131Section 133ASection 68

…ince the assessee has proved sale of gold/diamond ornaments vis- à-vis the stock register. In support of this proposition, the learned AR relied on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of R.B.Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept) Vs. CIT (75 ITR 33). 9. The learned AR further submitted that the decision rendered by Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of J.M.J. Essential Oil Co. (supra) has been rendered under the peculiar facts of that case and hence that decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He submitted the assessee before Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Co…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Motisons Jewellers Ltdl, Jaipur

ITA 161/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ine for wants of the details which are not required to obtain and keep as per the law. The reliance is placed on the following decisions: - i) Hon’bleHigh Court of Bombay in the case of R.B. JessaramFatehchand(Sugar Dept.)v/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1970] 75 ITR 33 (Bombay) (Copy at Case Law PB Page No. 153-156) held that:- Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 13 of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922] - Method of accounting - Rejection of accounts - On assessee's inability to supply addresses of purchasers who purchased goods on cash, ITO rejected assessee's books of account showing…

ITO, WD.25(4), Kolkata vs. Pabitra Majumder, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed & C

ITA 53/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Ward-25(4), Kolkata Shri Pabitra Majumder Vs. W/2, Akra Road, Bartala, Kolkata – 700 066. [Pan: Axzpm 1249 D] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.10/Kol/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 53/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Pabitra Majumder Ito, Ward-25(4), Kolkata W/2, Akra Road, Bartala, Vs. Kolkata – 700 066. [Pan: Axzpm 1249 D] (Cross-Objector) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pradip Kumar Mandal, Acit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) -7, Kolkata Dated 24.08.2020 & Consequent To That Another Cross-Objection Filed By The Assessee Being C.O. No. 10/Kol/2021. “I. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Was Correct In Upholding The Contention Of The Assessee In Absence To Any Verifiable Material To Warrant The Same.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Mandal, ACIT, DR
Section 69A

…ot be treated as undisclosed income and no addition could be made once again in respect of the same. The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Department. The Bombay High Court in the case of R.B. Jessaram Fetehchand (Sugar Dept.) v. CIT (1969) 75 ITR 33 (Bom), dealing with the issue of cash sales of sugar. The Assessing Officer required address of the buyers. The Hon’ble High Court in regard to the matter held as under:- "In the case of a cash transaction where delivery of goods is taken against cash payment, it is hardly necessary for the seller to bother about the name and address of the purchas…

Pukhraj, Shivamogga vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Shivamogga

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 43/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Pukhraj, Vs. Acit, Prop: Kissan Trading Co., Circle – 1, Bhati Complex, Shivamogga. 1St Cross Garden Area, Shivamogga – 577 202. Pan : Afjpp 7695 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Pukhraj, Vs. ACIT, Prop: Kissan Trading Co., Circle – 1, Bhati Complex, Shivamogga. 1st Cross Garden Area, Shivamogga – 577 202. PAN : AFJPP 7695 A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA Revenue by : Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 13.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 19.07.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, Accountant Member This appeal is against the order of the National Fac…

Kalaneedhi Jewellers LLP, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 311/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…More (1969) 72 ITR 807 (SC) • Smt. HarshilaChordiavs ITO (2008) 298 ITR 349 (Raj) • M/s Heera Steel Limited vs. ITO (2005) 4 ITJ 437 (Nag) • CIT vs. Ghai Lime Stone Co. (1983) 144 ITR 140(MP) • R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept.) v. CIT reported at [1970] 75 ITR 33 (BOM.) • M. Durai Raj v. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 484 (Kerala) • M/s Asian Consolidated Industries Limited vs ITO in ITA No. 4873/Del/1998 order dated 05.10.2018 (Del Bench) • ITO vs. M/s Sunny Jewellery House in ITA No. 196/Chd/2014 order dated 06.05.2016 (ITAT Chd) • ACIT vs. M/s Kewal Singh in ITA No. 664/Chd/2016 order dated 08.02.2017 (ITAT Chd) • Ho…

Ssmt. Charu Aggarwal, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 310/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…More (1969) 72 ITR 807 (SC) • Smt. HarshilaChordiavs ITO (2008) 298 ITR 349 (Raj) • M/s Heera Steel Limited vs. ITO (2005) 4 ITJ 437 (Nag) • CIT vs. Ghai Lime Stone Co. (1983) 144 ITR 140(MP) • R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept.) v. CIT reported at [1970] 75 ITR 33 (BOM.) • M. Durai Raj v. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 484 (Kerala) • M/s Asian Consolidated Industries Limited vs ITO in ITA No. 4873/Del/1998 order dated 05.10.2018 (Del Bench) • ITO vs. M/s Sunny Jewellery House in ITA No. 196/Chd/2014 order dated 06.05.2016 (ITAT Chd) • ACIT vs. M/s Kewal Singh in ITA No. 664/Chd/2016 order dated 08.02.2017 (ITAT Chd) • Ho…

M/S Prestige Estates Projects Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-18(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt.R.Premi, JCIT-DR
Section 191Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206ASection 4

…il Appeal No 5592 of 2008 dated 05.05.2014 recognized a principle that when a term is not defined in the Act or CBDT circulars then the accounting meaning of the same can be accepted. 3.44 The Bombay High Court in Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept) (RB) v. CIT 75 ITR 33 has held that the accounts regularly maintained have to be taken as correct unless there are strong and sufficient reasons to indicate that they are unreliable. The Supreme Court has made identical observations in CIT v. Woodward Governor India P. Ltd 312 ITR 254. 3.45 According to the learned AR, the treatment given in the books of account are to…

The ACIT Cen Cir-13, Mumbai vs. Shri Suresh V. Jain, Mumbai

Accordingly, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5091/MUM/2007[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5091/Mum/2007 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri L. K. S. DehiyaFor Respondent: ShriRajiv Khandelwal
Section 132(1)Section 153A

…f the Ld. AO is not correct. It is further submitted that the issue of Non- mention ofaddresses of purchasers in cash transactions came up before the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court. It was held by the H'ble Mumba, High Court in R.B. JessaramFatechand v. CIT [1970] 75 ITR 33 (Born.) that in the case of a cash transaction where delivery of goods is taken against cash payment, it is hardly, necessary for the seller to bother about the name and address of the purchaser. Accordingly, in such cases, 17 I.T.A. No. 5091 & 4198/Mum/2007 & CO-261/Mum/2007 Shri Suresh V. Jain the account books of the assessee cannot be rejected…

Shri Paresh Jashwant Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-16(3), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7014/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhshri Paresh Jashwant Shah, Acit Circle-16 (3), Shah & Sanghvi, Solicitors Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 114-A, Mittal Court, Mumbai-400020. Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aahps6149M Appellant Respondent Shri Paresh Jashwant Shah, Ito-16 (3)(2), Shah & Sanghvi, Solicitors Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 114-A, Mittal Court, Mumbai-400020. Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aahps6149M Appellant Respondent : Shri Jitendra Jain (Ar) Appellant By Respondent By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesheri (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. These Two Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act

For Respondent: Shri Jitendra Jain (AR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…for deleting the entire addition. To substantiate his contention, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the 5 ITA No. 7014 & 7015 Mum 2017-Shri Paresh Jashwant Shah decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept.) vs. CIT [75 ITR 33 (Bom)] the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Neel Giri Krishi Farms Pvt. Ltd. (38 taxmann.com 69 (Allahabad. HC), decision of Mumbai Tribunal in DCIT vs. Vijay Sales (52 taxmann.com 310 (Mum. Trib.), decision of Jaipur Tribunal in Resonance Adventures (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT (83 taxmann.com 232 (Jaipur Trib.) 9. On the other hand, th…

ITO, Rohtak vs. Sh. Rajeev Aggarwal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3031/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(1)(a)Section 145(3)

…are of the opinion that simply because the names of the buyers were not mentioned in the bills of cash sales, it would not go to disbelieve the books of account as held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of RB Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept.) vs. CIT, 75 ITR 33. We find substance in the contention of the assessee that gold bullion is a precious metal and its day-to- day rates are easily ascertainable from the rates declared by National Market, Sarrafa Bazars etc. It is not the case of the Revenue that the rate of bullion 7 charged in the invoices was not in consonance with the market rates of gold bullio…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Omnia Appliances Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3775/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Omnia Appliances Pvt. Ltd, Circle-19(1), 552, Katra Asharfi, Chandi New Delhi Chowk, New Delhi Pan: Aaaco8275E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goel, CAFor Respondent: Smt Naina Sain Kapil, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 145Section 80Section 801CSection 80I

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT, Vs. Omnia Appliances Pvt. Ltd, Circle-19(1), 552, Katra Asharfi, Chandi New Delhi Chowk, New Delhi PAN: AAACO8275E (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Smt Naina Sain Kapil, Sr. DR Assessee by: Shri Ashish Goel, CA Date of Hearing 13/09/2018 Date of pronouncement 10/12/2018 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A)-7, New Delhi dated 03.03.2015 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The revenu…

Asian Can Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 3(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee-company is allowed

ITA 4873/DEL/1998[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2018AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ashish ChadhaFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80H

…ied upon the orders of the authorities below. 16. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that the impugned addition is wholly unjustified. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of R.B. Jessaram Fetehchand (Sugar Dept.) vs. CIT (1969) 75 ITR 33 (Bom.) held as under : “Books of account cannot be rejected merely because the addresses of purchasers in cash sales not maintained and supplied on demand by ITO.” 24 ITA.No.4873/Del./1998 M/s. Asian Consolidated Industries Limited, Village Bawal, Dist. Rewari, Haryana. 16.1. In the present case, the A.O. examined the issue of sales and purchases…

DCIT 9(1), Mumbai vs. Aurochem Laboratories P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6906/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri V.C. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist, DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(1)

…stified in rejecting the accounts. We find that in the instant appeal the AO has not given the assessee reasonable opportunity for offering the explanation regarding the defects, if any in the accounts. In R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Deptt) vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 33, 37 (Bom), it has been held that the assessee’s account books are to be accepted, unless, on verification, they disclose any faults or defects, which cannot be reasonably and satisfactorily explained by the assessee. We find that in the present case the AO has failed to give valid reasons for declaring the accounts of the assessee to be either fals…

ITO, Rohtak vs. M/S. Veekay Medicos, Rohtak

In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 968/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh.G.D.Agarwal & Smt Diva Singh

Section 194HSection 40

…hout the ID proof of the customer. The AO neither pointed any discrepancy/deficiency nor conducted any enquiries, if he had doubt regarding the genuineness of the Claim. "The Bombay High Court in the case of R.B.Jessram Fatehchand (Sugar Department) vs CIT in 75 ITR 33 observed that The ITO had scrutinised closely the account books of the assessee and had found no fault with them excepting that the addresses of the customers for the cash sales of sugar had not been entered. It was not found by him that there were any other reasons for not accepting the said cash sales, such as, for instance, the sales being at lo…

Reshma Emterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 14(2)(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3390/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Reshma Enterprises, Ito Wd 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Earnest House, Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ito Wd 14(2)(3), Reshma Enterprises, Earnest House, 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Nariman Point Mumbai-400002 Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Respondent) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B Assessment Year: 2005-06 Reshma Enterprises, Ito Wd 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. Earnest House, बनाम/ Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B

Section 143(3)Section 69

…13 ITR 712 (Bom.) ii) Of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. 8 Reshma Enterprises Adinath Industries [2001] 252 ITR 476 (Guj.) iii) Of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (sugar department) vs. CIT [1970] 75 ITR 33 (Bom.) iv) Of the Hon'ble Tribunal Calcutta 'B' Bench in the case of Sagar Bose vs. ITO [1996] 56 lTD 561 (Cal.) v) Of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. U.M. Shah, Prop. Shrenik Trading Co. [1973] 90 ITR 396 (Bom.) Hence the appellant objected to the addition of Rs. 53,06,985/- being the entire purchases from said parties. I have…

ITO 14(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Reshma Enterprises, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6667/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Reshma Enterprises, Ito Wd 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Earnest House, Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ito Wd 14(2)(3), Reshma Enterprises, Earnest House, 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Nariman Point Mumbai-400002 Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Respondent) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B Assessment Year: 2005-06 Reshma Enterprises, Ito Wd 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. Earnest House, बनाम/ Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B

Section 143(3)Section 69

…13 ITR 712 (Bom.) ii) Of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. 8 Reshma Enterprises Adinath Industries [2001] 252 ITR 476 (Guj.) iii) Of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (sugar department) vs. CIT [1970] 75 ITR 33 (Bom.) iv) Of the Hon'ble Tribunal Calcutta 'B' Bench in the case of Sagar Bose vs. ITO [1996] 56 lTD 561 (Cal.) v) Of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. U.M. Shah, Prop. Shrenik Trading Co. [1973] 90 ITR 396 (Bom.) Hence the appellant objected to the addition of Rs. 53,06,985/- being the entire purchases from said parties. I have…

Reshma Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 14(2)(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6246/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Reshma Enterprises, Ito Wd 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Earnest House, Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ito Wd 14(2)(3), Reshma Enterprises, Earnest House, 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Nariman Point Mumbai-400002 Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Respondent) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B Assessment Year: 2005-06 Reshma Enterprises, Ito Wd 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. Earnest House, बनाम/ Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B

Section 143(3)Section 69

…13 ITR 712 (Bom.) ii) Of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. 8 Reshma Enterprises Adinath Industries [2001] 252 ITR 476 (Guj.) iii) Of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (sugar department) vs. CIT [1970] 75 ITR 33 (Bom.) iv) Of the Hon'ble Tribunal Calcutta 'B' Bench in the case of Sagar Bose vs. ITO [1996] 56 lTD 561 (Cal.) v) Of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. U.M. Shah, Prop. Shrenik Trading Co. [1973] 90 ITR 396 (Bom.) Hence the appellant objected to the addition of Rs. 53,06,985/- being the entire purchases from said parties. I have…